GR L 1337; (October, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1337; October 16, 1948
LO CHING Y SO YUN CHONG CO., petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lo Ching Y So Yun Chong Co. leased a property on R. Hidalgo Street, Manila, from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila under a contract dated August 30, 1940. The lease term was for three years from September 1, 1940, extendible for another two years “upon agreement of the parties.” In February 1942, during the Japanese occupation, the Japanese military ejected the petitioners from the property and turned it over to a German national, Otto Schulze, who occupied it until January 1945. The petitioners reoccupied the property in early February 1945 and paid rent. Before the end of August 1945, the lessor demanded that the petitioners vacate the property, but they refused. The lessor filed an ejectment suit. The municipal court and the Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the lessor, ordering the petitioners to vacate and pay rent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lease contract’s two-year extension clause was optional for the lessee or required mutual agreement at the time of extension.
2. Whether the period of the petitioners’ dispossession by the Japanese military should be deducted from the original lease term, effectively extending their right to occupy the property.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. The two-year extension clause (“upon agreement of the parties”) was optional for the lessee. The mutual agreement was already given at the execution of the original contract. Therefore, the lessee had the option to extend for two more years without needing fresh consent from the lessor, but was not obligated to do so. The original three-year term expired on August 31, 1945.
2. The petitioners’ dispossession by the Japanese military was a mere disturbance of fact (perturbacion de mero hecho) for which the lessor was not liable under Article 1560 of the Civil Code. The lessor did not cause the dispossession and had no obligation to grant an extension or credit for the lost time. The terms of the lease contract are the law between the parties and must be strictly followed. The court has no power to extend the lease term contrary to the contract’s stipulations.
AI Generated by Armztrong.